Permanent Constitution or a Permanently Changing One?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Which is a nice way of saying liberals and activist judges have gone around what the constitution says in order to get laws passed that the constitution does not allow for. The constitution at this point is basically defined by whichever party is in power, or which judge is making a decision, as it has become fashionable to find just about any meaning you possibly can in the constitution.

Which is a nice way of saying you don't know what you are talking about .

The Constitution has been "interpreted" ever since the beginning. Let us not forget the Adams' administration's use of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" which some (like Thomas Jefferson) would have considered alien to the 1st Amendment. I am guessing that John Adams is... a liberal (well, in those days he was... as were all the founders, but that's not what we consider a liberal nowadays).

And I'd rather have a flexible Constitution than a Communist Revolution during the 1930s.

[DAVOUT]

Constitutions, and generally institutions, are as good as the men in charge. The real question is :"Is is better to change the constitution or the men in charge?". Often, changing the men in charge would be enough, but for some reason they always advocate that changing the constitution is absolutely needed.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Odin
Bush is a liberal?

Is there any difference between neo-liberal and neo-conservative?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Which is a nice way of saying you don't know what you are talking about .

The Constitution has been "interpreted" ever since the beginning. Let us not forget the Adams' administration's use of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" which some (like Thomas Jefferson) would have considered alien to the 1st Amendment. I am guessing that John Adams is... a liberal (well, in those days he was... as were all the founders, but that's not what we consider a liberal nowadays).

And I'd rather have a flexible Constitution than a Communist Revolution during the 1930s.

Legally what allows such flexibility on the part of the courts for interpreting the constitution? Can they use the same approach to private contracts? Interpret them however they please to further their own personal interpretations of the public good?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Legally what allows such flexibility on the part of the courts for interpreting the constitution?

It's a double standard but one the Court is more than happy to indulge because it allows them to indulge in a bit a creative writing when they get to make crap up out of thin air (substantive due process, etc). So legally what allows them to do it that way is because they say so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Legally what allows such flexibility on the part of the courts for interpreting the constitution? Can they use the same approach to private contracts? Interpret them however they please for to further their own personal interpretations of the public good?

The utter vagueness of some of the provisions. I mean look at how many interpretations there have been for making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" and what that phrasing actually means, even when looking at writing of the signers and the debate over the actual phrasing (there were, IIRC, 18 vastly varying draft versions of the religion part of the 1st Amendment).

And then you have conflicting beliefs among the 'founders' of how flexible the Constitution should be. Some believed it should be read very loosely, while others thought differently.

Oh, and of course they can interpret private contracts however they want as well (they are the Supreme Court), but they usually don't, because they are concerned with how the body is viewed among the public.

[Zkribbler]

...and what's a "reasonable search"
or a "cruel and unusual" punishment?

A farmer grows cow feed on his own farm to feed to his own cattle so he doesn't have to buy the feed shipped from out of state. Is he affecting interstate commerce, thus subjecting himself to federal regulations?

Can someone be a traitor -- that is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- if we're fighting a war that has never been declared? Go a step further and ask is it constitutional to fight an undeclared war?

One of the reasons for the Constitution's longevity is its flexibility.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

One of the reasons for the Constitution's longevity is its ambiguity.

fixed

[Colon™]

Bow or break.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Odin
fixed

Actually, you did. Thanks.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Starchild
In the UK, there is no written constitution. So all it takes is Parliament to pass a law and major constitutional areas can be changed. Our constitutions is fluid and dynamic.

Question: what is the role of the House of Lords in this?

Does the Queen have a veto even if she choses not to use it?

[Ned]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight


Which is a nice way of saying liberals and activist judges have gone around what the constitution says in order to get laws passed that the constitution does not allow for. The constitution at this point is basically defined by whichever party is in power, or which judge is making a decision, as it has become fashionable to find just about any meaning you possibly can in the constitution.

In the Lochner era, it was the conservatives who were blocking social reform. It is a two-edged sword.

Prior to the civil war, the Supremes did a lot to cause it with their Dred Scott decision upsetting decades of carefully crafted compromises that kept the nation together.

What is true, that with a Constitution like ours, the real power in the US about fundamental law is with the unelected Supreme Court and not with the people.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Ned


Question: what is the role of the House of Lords in this?

Does the Queen have a veto even if she choses not to use it?

The House of Lords is the upper house. Its members used to be hereditary but are now appointed by the Government for life and in the future a percentage (0-100%) may be elected. The Lords review Government legislation sent from the Commons but can only delay it, not prevent its passage. The Commons can overrule the Lords using an Act of Parliament to get a bill passed. Also, the Lords is currently the highest court in the UK but the establishment of the Supreme Court of the UK will establish a separate judicial branch.

The House of Lords, The House of Commons and the Crown form the Parliament of the UK.

As for the Crown, in theory it can refuse to grant royal assent to a bill, preventing it from becoming law. However, its been 300 years since this last happened. Since the powers of the Crown ultimately rest on what the House of Commons allows the Crown to have, "vetoing" something would lead to a constitutional crisis that may see the Crown stripped of more of its powers. The Monarch reigns, they do not rule.

This should answer any more questions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_constitution

[Ned]

Originally posted by Starchild


The House of Lords is the upper house. Its members used to be hereditary but are now appointed by the Government for life and in the future a percentage (0-100%) may be elected. The Lords review Government legislation sent from the Commons but can only delay it, not prevent its passage. The Commons can overrule the Lords using an Act of Parliament to get a bill passed. Also, the Lords is currently the highest court in the UK but the establishment of the Supreme Court of the UK will establish a separate judicial branch.

The House of Lords, The House of Commons and the Crown form the Parliament of the UK.

As for the Crown, in theory it can refuse to grant royal assent to a bill, preventing it from becoming law. However, its been 300 years since this last happened. Since the powers of the Crown ultimately rest on what the House of Commons allows the Crown to have, "vetoing" something would lead to a constitutional crisis that may see the Crown stripped of more of its powers. The Monarch reigns, they do not rule.

This should answer any more questions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_constitution

Thanks.

I think a veto would only work if the veto itself was very popular. But, the occasion for this would be very rare.

Besides, I think the government does consult the monarchy on important issues so that the ship of state is oaring in unison.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Ned


Thanks.

I think a veto would only work if the veto itself was very popular. But, the occasion for this would be very rare.

Besides, I think the government does consult the monarchy on important issues so that the ship of state is oaring in unison.

Its so rare that its only happened once in the last 300 years.